Governance and community benefit: are nonprofit hospitals good candidates for Sarbanes-Oxley type reforms?

Recent investigations into the activities of nonprofit hospitals have pointed to weak or lax governance on the part of some of these organizations. As a result of these events, various federal and state initiatives are now either under way or under discussion to strengthen the governance of hospitals and other nonprofit corporations through mandatory board structures and practices. However, despite policy makers' growing interest in these types of governance reforms, there is in fact little empirical evidence to support their contribution to the effectiveness of hospital boards. The purpose of this article is to report the results of a study examining the relationship between the structure and practices of nonprofit hospital boards relative to the hospital's provision of community benefits. Our results point to modest relationships between these sets of variables, suggesting considerable limitations to what federal and state policy makers can accomplish through legislative initiatives to improve the governance of nonprofit hospitals.     

Community control and pricing patterns of nonprofit hospitals: An antitrust analysis

Traditional control of nonprofit hospitals by the communities they serve has been offered as justification for restraining antitrust enforcement of mergers that involve nonprofit hospitals. The community is arguably a constraint on a nonprofit's inclination to exercise market power in the form of higher prices; however, community control is likely to be attenuated for hospitals that through merger or acquisition become members of hospital systems--particularly those that operate on a regional or multiregional basis. We report findings from a study in which we examined empirically the relationship between market concentration and pricing patterns for three types of nonprofit hospitals that are distinguishable based on degree of community control: an independent hospital, a member of a local hospital system, and a member of a nonlocal hospital system. Study results indicated that when conditions existed to create a more concentrated market, (1) all three types of nonprofit hospitals exercised market power in the form of higher prices, and (2) hospitals that were members of nonlocal systems were more aggressive in exercising market power than were either independent or local system hospitals. The results have important implications for antitrust enforcement policy.     

The Medicare Cost Report and the limits of hospital accountability: improving financial accounting data

Health policy makers, legislators, providers, payers, and a broad range of other players in the health care market routinely seek information on hospital financial performance. Yet the data at their disposal are limited, especially since hospitals' audited financial statements--the "gold standard" in hospital financial reporting--are not publicly available in many states. As a result, the Medicare Cost Report (MCR), filed annually by most U.S. hospitals in order to receive payment for treating Medicare patients, has become the primary public source of hospital financial information. However, financial accounting elements in the MCR are unreliable, poorly defined, and lacking in critical detail. Comparative analyses of MCRs and matched, audited financial statements reveal long-standing problems with the MCR's data, including major differences in reported profits; variations in the reporting of both revenues and expenses; an absence of relevant details, such as charity care, bad debt, operating versus nonoperating income, and affiliate transactions; an inconsistent classification of changes in net assets; and a failure to provide cash flow statements. Because of these problems, MCR financial data give only a limited and often inaccurate picture of the financial position of hospitals. Audited financial statements provide a more complete perspective, enabling analysts to address important questions left unanswered by the MCR data. Regulatory action is needed to create a national database of financial information based upon audited statements.     

Medicare program; changes to the hospital inpatient prospective payment systems and fiscal year 2001 rates. Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), HHS. Final rule

We are revising the Medicare hospital inpatient prospective payment system for operating costs to: implement applicable statutory requirements, including a number of provisions of the Medicare, Medicaid, and State Children's Health Insurance Program Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 106-113); and implement changes arising from our continuing experience with the system. In addition, in the Addendum to this final rule, we describe changes to the amounts and factors used to determine the rates for Medicare hospital inpatient services for operating costs and capital-related costs. These changes apply to discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2000. We also set forth rate-of-increase limits and make changes to our policy for hospitals and hospital units excluded from the prospective payment systems. We are making changes to the policies governing payments to hospitals for the direct costs of graduate medical education, sole community hospitals and critical access hospitals. We are adding a new condition of participation on organ, tissue, and eye procurement for critical access hospitals that parallels the condition of participation that we previously published for all other Medicare-participating hospitals. Lastly, we are finalizing a January 20, 2000 interim final rule with comment period (65 FR 3136) that sets forth the criteria to be used in calculating the Medicare disproportionate share adjustment in reference to Medicaid expansion waiver patient days under section 1115 of the Social Security Act.     

Medicare prospective payment: anticipated effect on hospitals, other community agencies, and families

The switch to prospective payment for hospitals under Medicare is expected to have ramifications in a number of different areas. This paper addresses a select number of those areas: hospital organization and management, other community agencies, and families. Questions are raised as to the capacity to provide adequate care in response to the increased demand for care outside the hospital setting that will result from the new payment system.     

Medicare program; prospective payment system and consolidated billing for skilled nursing facilities for FY 2009. Final rule

This final rule updates the payment rates used under the prospective payment system (PPS) for skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), for fiscal year (FY) 2009. It also discusses our ongoing analysis of nursing home staff time measurement data collected in the Staff Time and Resource Intensity Verification (STRIVE) project. Finally, this final rule makes technical corrections in the regulations text with respect to Medicare bad debt payments to SNFs and the reference to the definition of urban and rural as applied to SNFs.     

Hospital and patient characteristics of uncompensated hospital care: policy implications

For this study, a sample of 1,689 patients classified as "charity" and "bad debt" cases in 1986 were identified from 27 general acute care hospitals and one tertiary hospital in Indiana. Half of the hospitals were in rural areas and 57 percent were small (less than 150 beds). Most of the patients (87.2 percent) incurred uncompensated amounts under $2,500, and 40 percent of the cases were below $500. About 72 percent of the patients with uncompensated care were from the same county as the location of the hospital (range from 30.9% to 100.0%). The majority of the cases (79.4 percent) with over $5,000 in uncompensated care were treated in urban hospitals. The average age of these patients was 27.2 years. Fifty-four percent of the patients were single, 60.7 percent were female, and nearly all (83.0 percent) were discharged to home care. Only 44.6 percent of the patients with uncompensated care had no insurance; 46.8 percent had some form of commercial insurance which covered part of the charges for care. The most common diagnosis for these patients was pregnancy and childbirth (22.8 percent), with injury and poisoning second (10.7 percent). The cases with $5,000 or more in bad debt (about 4 percent of the cases) account for 28.3 percent of the total uncollected amount. Bad debt represents a cost of doing business. Any national effort to contain health care costs must address this problem.     

Corporate reorganization: the last gasp or last clear chance for the tax-exempt, nonprofit hospital?

The current revolution in health care organization and financing, increased competition, and a retrenching of industry from its commitments to expansion of health care benefits challenge the nonprofit hospital's existence as a viable entity. Hospital governing boards and administrators have turned to corporate reorganization in order to maintain their financial position and to continue to serve their communities. This Article examines the not-for-profit concept and the problems facing nonprofit hospitals. It reviews the pros and cons of reorganization and the for-profit/nonprofit controversy. It questions whether the hybridization of the hospital results in a stronger or weaker species and discusses the possible effects of the newly structured entity on the quality and delivery of health care. Finally, the Article suggests that the nonprofit hospital may survive only by a continued commitment to societal and communal values, to service rather than to profit; that this commitment is adequate justificaton for the preservation of the nonprofit system, and its preservation will reinforce and strengthen the concept.     

Applying antitrust law to nonprofit healthcare entities: arguments for a greater attention to detail

This Article begins with an antitrust primer, then analyzes the appropriate application of antitrust principles to nonprofit healthcare providers. In light of the inherent charitable character of nonprofit healthcare providers, the author contends that the government and the courts should accord some deference to nonprofit hospitals when they are seeking approval of mergers. To date, this has not generally been the case, although a few recent court decisions have rested their approval of mergers, in part, upon the nonprofit character of the merging entities. The author, in particular, believes the paradigmatic local nonprofit hospital with a community board is less likely than a for-profit hospital to abuse any market power that it may obtain through a merger; consequently, any such merger should not be analyzed solely under the traditional presumptions of antitrust jurisprudence. Rather, the premerger analysis should involve meaningful consideration of the hospital's charitable character.     

The role of Medicare reimbursement in contemporary hospital finance

A hospital, while performing its major function of providing health care, is also viewed as a business. It needs capital from a wide variety of sources, many of which are government regulated. Over the past few years, federal expenditures for Medicare have increased dramatically, as has regulation of hospital revenue sources. Congress enacted the Medicare Prospective Payment System (PPS) to curb hospital cost inflation. This Note examines historical trends in health care financing and analyzes the Medicare reimbursement system, with emphasis on PPS and its impact on hospital revenues. The Note suggests that hospitals, due to the effects of PPS, will be forced to reduce their levels of financial leverage and will have to look for corporate financial alternatives. PPS may signal a new era in hospital finance. Survival mandates an increased focus on efficient corporate, financial and managerial policies.     

Medicare program; prospective payment system for inpatient psychiatric facilities. Final rule

This final rule establishes a prospective payment system for Medicare payment of inpatient hospital services furnished in psychiatric hospitals and psychiatric units of acute care hospitals and critical access hospitals. It implements section 124 of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999 (BBRA). The prospective payment system described in this final rule will replace the reasonable cost-based payment system under which psychiatric hospitals and psychiatric units are paid under Medicare.     

Medicare program; changes to the hospital inpatient prospective payment systems and fiscal year 2003 rates. Final rule

We are revising the Medicare acute care hospital inpatient prospective payment systems for operating and capital costs to implement changes arising from our continuing experience with these systems. In addition, in the Addendum to this final rule, we describe the changes to the amounts and factors used to determine the rates for Medicare hospital inpatient services for operating costs and capital-related costs. These changes are applicable to discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2002. We also are setting forth rate-of-increase limits as well as policy changes for hospitals and hospital units excluded from the acute care hospital inpatient prospective payment systems. In addition, we are setting forth changes to other hospital payment policies, which include policies governing: Payments to hospitals for the direct and indirect costs of graduate medical education; pass-through payments for the services of nonphysician anesthetists in some rural hospitals; clinical requirements for swing-bed services in critical access hospitals (CAHs); and requirements and responsibilities related to provider-based entities.     

Medicare program; prospective payment system for hospital outpatient services--HCFA. Proposed rule

As required by sections 4521, 4522, and 4523 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, this proposed rule would eliminate the formula-driven overpayment for certain outpatient hospital services, extend reductions in payment for costs of hospital outpatient services, and establish in regulations a prospective payment system for hospital outpatient services (and for Medicare Part B services furnished to inpatients who have no Part A coverage). The prospective payment system would simplify our current payment system and apply to all hospitals, including those that are excluded from the inpatient prospective payment system. The Balanced Budget Act provides for implementation of the prospective payment system effective January 1, 1999, but delays application of the system to cancer hospitals until January 1, 2000. The hospital outpatient prospective payment system would also apply to partial hospitalization services furnished by community mental health centers. Although the statutory effective date for the outpatient prospective payment system is January 1, 1999, implementation of the new system will have to be delayed because of year 2000 systems concerns. The demands on intermediary bill processing systems and HCFA internal systems to become compliant for the year 2000 preclude making the major systems changes that are required to implement the prospective payment system. The outpatient prospective payment system will be implemented for all hospitals and community mental health centers as soon as possible after January 1, 2000, and a notice of the anticipated implementation date will be published in the Federal Register at least 90 days in advance. This document also proposes new requirements for provider departments and provider-based entities. These proposed changes, as revised based on our consideration of public comments, will be effective 30 days after publication of a final rule. This proposed rule would also implement section 9343(c) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, which prohibits Medicare payment for nonphysician services furnished to a hospital outpatient by a provider or supplier other than a hospital, unless the services are furnished under an arrangement with the hospital. This section also authorizes the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General to impose a civil money penalty, not to exceed $10,000, against any individual or entity who knowingly and willfully presents a bill for nonphysician or other bundled services not provided directly or under such an arrangement. This proposed rule also addresses the requirements for designating certain entities as provider-based or as a department of a hospital.     

Medicare program; inpatient hospital deductible and coinsurance and skilled nursing facility coinsurance for 1990--HCFA. Notice

This notice announces that the inpatient hospital deductible for calendar year 1990 under Medicare's hospital insurance program (part A) remains the same as announced on September 29, 1989 at 54 FR 40205. However, the repeal of the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988 by the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Repeal Act of 1989 restored 1988 part A coverage and cost-sharing rules, including the benefit period provisions, coinsurance charges, and the three-day prior hospitalization requirement for skilled nursing facility (SNF) care. Because the Part A catastrophic benefits under the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988 were in effect in 1989, the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Repeal Act of 1989 included several provisions that apply to beneficiaries who were inpatients of hospitals or SNFs both at the end of 1989 and the beginning of 1990.     

Special report on taxation. IRS issues stricter guidelines for audits of tax-exempt hospitals

The new audit guidelines serve as yet another reminder to tax-exempt hospitals that great care must be taken in structuring and documenting business arrangements with physicians and executives so as to withstand scrutiny by the IRS with regard to exempt status. Since increased census and utilization, and enhancement of the hospital's financial position, are no longer acceptable justifications for such activities as physician recruitment incentives (being suggestive of payment for referrals), it is important that hospitals make an effort to ensure that board minutes, recruitment policies, internal memoranda, and other documentation set forth the reasons--other than the benefits to the institution's bottom line--for having entered into such transactions. Hospitals must establish and document a community need for each physician recruited. Hospitals that actively recruit should be armed with studies evaluating recruiting needs in each clinical area, based on objective criteria, taking into consideration managed care contracting needs and the provision of services to the poor and needy. Finally, hospitals should re-examine all joint ventures and other business relationships with physicians to determine whether such arrangements resulted from arm's length negotiation, involve fair market value for goods and services, and conform, insofar as possible, with the Medicare fraud and abuse safe harbor regulations. Under GCM 39862 and the new guidelines, "aggressive" arrangements may not only create exposure under fraud and abuse laws, but could jeopardize the provider's tax-exempt status as well.     

Medicare program; notification of hospital discharge appeal rights. Final rule

This final rule sets forth requirements for how hospitals must notify Medicare beneficiaries who are hospital inpatients about their hospital discharge rights. Notice is required both for original Medicare beneficiaries and for beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans and other Medicare health plans subject to the MA regulations. (For purposes of this preamble, these entities will collectively be known as "Medicare health plans"). Hospitals will use a revised version of the Important Message from Medicare (IM), an existing statutorily required notice, to explain the discharge rights. Hospitals must issue the IM within 2 days of admission, and must obtain the signature of the beneficiary or his or her representative. Hospitals will also deliver a copy of the signed notice prior to discharge, but not more than 2 days before the discharge. For beneficiaries who request an appeal, the hospital will deliver a more detailed notice.     

Medicare program; changes to the hospital inpatient prospective payment systems and fiscal year 1995 rates--HCFA. Final rule with comment period

We are revising the Medicare hospital inpatient prospective payment systems for operating costs and capital-related costs to implement necessary changes arising from our continuing experience with the system. In addition, in the addendum to this final rule, we are describing changes in the amounts and factors necessary to determine prospective payment rates for Medicare hospital inpatient services for operating costs and capital-related costs. These changes are applicable to discharges occurring on or after October 1, 1994. We are also setting forth rate-of-increase limits for hospitals and hospital units excluded from the prospective payment systems. Finally, we are revising the criteria used by the Medicare Geographic Classification Review Board (MGCRB) to decide on applications by hospitals for geographic reclassification for prospective payment purposes.     

Privacy Act of 1974; system of records--HCFA. Notice of proposed new routine use for existing system of records

One of the top priorities of HHS is to assure high quality and effective health care. HCFA is proposing to revise the system notice for the Medicare Bill File (Statistics). System No. 09-70-0005, by adding a new routine use for release of Medicare Hospital Mortality Information which is derived from data in the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MEDPAR) File, and other files available to HCFA. The purpose of this routine use is to allow individuals hospitals to participate in quality of care studies and activities by using data that they have previously supplied to HCFA. This new routine use will allow release to individual hospitals of patient-specific data including mortality predictors which have been statistically derived.     

Medicare program; definition of provider-sponsored organization and related requirements--HCFA. Interim final rule with comment period

The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 establishes a new Medicare + Choice program that significantly expands the health care options available to Medicare beneficiaries. Under this program, eligible individuals may elect to receive Medicare benefits through enrollment in one of an array of private health plans that contract with HCFA. Among the new options available to Medicare beneficiaries is enrollment in a provider-sponsored organization (PSO). This interim final rule with comment period defines the term "provider-sponsored organization" for purposes of the Medicare program and establishes requirements related to meeting this definition. We believe that setting forth the definition of a PSO and the related requirements will facilitate the submission of applications to participate in the Medicare program as a PSO.